Site Mobile Navigation

How I Would Spend Trump’s Wall Money

You’re viewing someone else’s picks for how they would spend Trump’s border wall money. Jump to their picks.

Is an additional $5.7 billion for a border wall really the best way to protect Americans? While President Trump is playing with billions of dollars and millions of lives, I decided to play with that money, too – to advance the greater good.

Here’s our own toy wall, which may be as real as Trump’s will ever be, and what we’d use the money for.

I propose allocating the $5.7 billion in ways that I believe would be far more effective in benefiting Americans and the world. Below, you can use a calculator to make your own choices. It’s thrilling to hand out billions! (Jump right to the calculator.)

Each large brick represents about $50 million of the

$5.7 billion that Trump is seeking for the border wall

$250 million

on alternative

border security

$1.03 billion

to save lives

around the

world

$2.2 billion on

America’s kids

$359 million

to reduce

pathways to

crime

$1.38 billion

to improve security

for Americans

$486 million

on other

programs

Each large brick represents about $50 million of the $5.7 billion

that Trump is seeking for the border wall

$250 million

on alternative

border security

$1.03 billion

to save lives

around the

world

$2.2 billion on

America’s kids

$359 million

to reduce

pathways to

crime

$1.38 billion

to improve security

for Americans

$486 million

on other

programs

Alternative border

security

$250M

$2.2 billion

Help America’s kids

$359M

Prevent

crime

$1.03B

Save

lives

abroad

$1.38 billion

Improve security

$486M

Other

Each large brick represents about $50 million

of the $5.7 billion that Trump is seeking

for the border wall

Alternative Border Security: Help People and Reduce Violence

$250 million

Anti-gang program

in Central America

$250M

Anti-gang program

in Central America

Gang violence in Central America drives much of the immigration across our southern border, so let’s invest in proven programs that can reduce that violence. A much-studied program called Cure Violence achieved 45 percent reductions in violent crime in Trinidad and Tobago and up to 90 percent reductions in shootings in Honduras.

Additional anti-gang initiatives in Central America could save lives, reduce the “push factors” that drive migrants and reduce the need for border security — all at a much lower cost than a wall.

Improve Security for Americans

$1.12 billion

Drug treatment

for mothers with

addiction

$11.8 million

Gun buyback

programs

$250 million

Anti-gang

programs

in the U.S.

$11.8M

Gun buyback

programs

$1.12B

Drug treatment

for mothers with

addiction

$250M

Anti-gang

programs

in the U.S.

Drug overdoses kill far more Americans (70,000 a year) than immigrants, terrorists, guns or automobiles, yet only 10 percent of Americans with addictions get specialized treatment. So one way to save American lives and also reduce the crime that often goes with addiction would be to provide treatment that helps people break drug dependency.

One of the most successful programs, Women in Recovery, works with moms in Oklahoma who are drug offenders; for each participant, it costs $28,000, lasts 18 months, ends with the woman employed and has only a 4 percent recidivism rate over three years. The children also benefit as their mothers move from addiction to regular jobs — so let’s expand it nationwide.

Reduce Pathways to Crime

$125 million

Lead reduction

$234 million

Prisoner job

training

$234 million

Prisoner job

training

$125 million

Lead reduction

More than half a million American children still are poisoned with lead each year, damaging their brains and increasing the risk that they will become criminals. One study found that a large-scale effort to reduce lead poisoning would save the United States billions of dollars in costs of crime and special education. Likewise, job training for prisoners through the Center for Employment Opportunities costs $6,500 per person and has a good record of turning offenders into taxpayers.

Invest in American Kids

$650 million

Home visiting

programs

$438 million

Contraceptives

$650 million

Technical education

$200 million

Permanent housing

for 20,000 homeless

people

$258 million

Literacy programs

$650M

Home

visiting

$438M

Contraceptives

$650M

Technical

education

$258M

Literacy

programs

$200M

Permanent

housing

Research suggests a higher return from investing in education than in walls; early childhood, when the brain is developing, is a particularly crucial window. Home visiting programs like Nurse Family Partnership coach at-risk moms and have an excellent record.

Another high-return investment: provide girls who don’t want to get pregnant with long-acting contraception such as IUDs and implants.

With Lots Left Over, Save Millions of Lives Around the World

$270 million

Supplement

for Vitamin A

$400 million

Contraception

$100 million

Deworm 200

million children

$157 million

Eye surgery

$100 million

Bednets to protect

against malaria

$270M

Supplement

for Vitamin A

$400M

Contraception

$100M

Deworm

children

$100M

Bednets

$157M

Eye surgery

Wow! We’re spending our “wall money” so cost-effectively that we have a chance to reserve some for humanitarian causes abroad. For example, millions of people go blind from cataracts, which a five-minute surgery can fix for $50. Similarly, 40 cents will deworm a child for a year, resulting in a kid who is healthier and better able to stay in school. Or vitamin A supplementation reduces the risk that a child in a poor country will die or go blind.

Even More Money to Spend ...

$250 million

Enforce tax

compliance

$111 million

Social-impact

bonds

$100 million

Research

$25 million

Dog subsidies for

mental health

$111M

Social-impact

bonds

$250M

Enforce tax

compliance

$100M

Research

$25M

Dog subsidies for

mental health

Even after all that, I have money left over. So let’s get creative.

The G.O.P. has sharply cut funding for the I.R.S., so that the audit risk has plunged for zillionaires. The Justice Department estimates that each additional $1 spent on tax compliance brings in an additional $6 in tax revenue. So with a modest investment, we can start all over again spending money!

If we start a fund to invest in social-impact bonds and performance-based contracts, we can tap private investors to address America’s needs — and pay only for success.

Finally, in a bit of whimsy: experiment with dog subsidies. True, this has not been subjected to randomized trials (any more than the wall). But mental health is underaddressed in America, with suicides at a 30-year high, and what greater comfort is there than a friendly dog?

Now It’s Your Turn

So I challenge you. How would you spend the $5.7 billion to make America better off? You can use all or part of the money to begin to build a wall (credible estimates for the cost of the full wall start at $22 billion), or you can allocate it to whatever area you believe generates the most bang for the buck. Then you can post your results on social media.

Note on choices

This is one of those projects in which all the numbers are difficult – or even impossible – to pin down. We tried hard to get the best cost and impact figures available, but they are estimates and we don’t want to convey a precision that is unrealistic.

For example, one of the literacy coaching initiatives I recommend is Reading Partners, which has been much studied and has an excellent record of improving children’s outcomes. Reading Partners told me that the cost per additional child would be $1,600, while an independent research group called MDRC that has studied Reading Partners calculated that the figure would be $320. The difference comes down to what is included (only cash or also in-kind expenses), and whether one calculates just the school cost or also that of outside partners.

Likewise, most of the money I allocated went to programs whose effectiveness has been shown in randomized controlled trials, the gold standard of evidence. But randomized trials are expensive and not much repeated (you don’t get tenure if you’re the sixth economist to show that something works), and in any case it’s not always clear that a trial in one location will be valid in another. As a result, there have been “worm wars” about the cost-effectiveness of deworming, and similar disagreements about a number of the other interventions cited.

Yet at least these disputes are waged with evidence. The impacts and figures I cite are imperfect but are my best guesses based on the data available. In putting together this project, my colleague Stuart Thompson and I gathered figures from GiveWell, MDRC, ImpactMatters, Social Finance, National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and others. In contrast, President Trump proposes to spend the $5.7 billion on the basis of no rigorous cost-benefit analysis or research. And what I’ve learned in my career is to go with the evidence, even as you’re skeptical of it.

Nicholas Kristof has been a columnist for The Times since 2001. He has won two Pulitzer Prizes, for his coverage of China and of the genocide in Darfur. You can sign up for his free, twice-weekly email newsletter and follow him on Instagram. @NickKristof • Facebook